talks at length for the first time about her own ordeal and her determination to keep john worboys behind bars. also tonight, brace yourselves for brexit, round 2, starting next week. what are the big battlegrounds? the eu 27 showed impressive unity throughout the first phase of negotiations. that, for months, people in brussels have been telling me that they're not quite so confident it will be so united in phase two. and, the beers and the barbies are out for australia day. but is it time to end celebrations of the day the british arrived and the subjugation of the indiginous people began? good evening. there was some relief tonight for the more than 100 victims of rapistjohn worboys. his imminent release from jail has been put on hold. two of the women that he raped today successfully obtained a high court
order, which means the man known as "the black cab rapist" is staying in prison, for now. worboys, who attacked his passengers after plying them with drink he'd spiked, was sentenced in 2009 to eight years injail plus an indeterminate sentence, to be decided by the parole board. that trial involved just 12 of his victims, because the then—director of public prosecutions decided that the evidence of those 12 was the best way to secure a lengthy sentence. tonight, we speak to one of the two women who won today's ruling. she was raped on the 6th of may 2003, but the police dismissed her story. it was only five years later, when the met appealed for victims to come forward following many more rapes, that she was believed. after worboys went to jail, the woman, who wishes to remain
anonymous, successfully sued the police for violation of her human rights in the initial investigation, a decision they are still contesting. i spoke to her today, before the new worboys ruling, about her own 15—year ordeal. what happened to you that night? i remember going out, meeting friends, having a meal, going on to a couple of pubs and bars with them. my group of friends hailed a cab for me. one common particular, was talking to him for a good five, ten minutes while i was saying goodbye to everybody. i got in the cab. next memory is waking up in hospital. feeling very disorientated, very distressed, knowing, instantly, that something had happened. what had happened when you got into the cab? did he engage in conversation straightaway? i mean, he was very, very chatty, like most black cab drivers are. didn't find that threatening,
in any way, because he seems like a normal cab driver. and he offered me a drink. which i said, first of all, i said, i didn't want the drink. but then, because he gave me the drink, i took a sip of it. but it was not a nice drink. and because i'd gone home at that point because i was consciously not drinking too much because i had to get on with my baby in the morning. and it was a very strong this year, sort of like an orange liqueur. we went over a speed bump. but he gave me another one. it was one of those situations and failures, beat myself up over it, thinking, why did i accept that drink? but it was a situation where you just think,
just drink it and you're going to get home and that's fine. and then he pulled over in a side road. and i remember him getting in the back of the cab with me and offering me a cigarette. and then that's the only memory i have until waking up the next morning. but, as far as a rape was concerned, evidentially, what was there? well, i was told by the police there was no drugs in my system. and there was, obviously, no dna evidence. because he was using a condom. yes. which they said at the time was what they were expecting. i was very shocked at them saying there was no drugs or anything in my system. because i knew there was. i knew, as soon as i had woken up, that i had been drugged. and there was evidence he had tried to use a lubricant or something?
yeah. and that was another reason you were sure. what impact did that have on you at the time? the thought that you've gone to all that trouble of going to the police, for them to say that a black cab driver, which they did say to me, a black cab driver wouldn't do it, and when they phoned to say they were closing the file, i was quite hysterical about it. because i said, "you've let him get away with almost the perfect crime". he will reoffend. and then, how does it all really engage again? there was an appeal on the news. i thought, i can't go through this again, can't be disbelieved and made to feel that i've made it all up all over again, can't do it. i can't get involved in any of this. so, i did delay probably for a day or so. but, then, ijust thought, can't not do anything. i can't...
go forward. it's just so wrong, i have to do what i can to help with this appeal. so, i phoned them, the helpline number, the number they'd given. and, actually, the lady i spoke to, when i gave my details, she said my details had already been flagged on the system and they were going to be contacting you. you were so sure that your case was one of the cases that would go to court, so what happened? they explained it to me. that they couldn't. .. convict him of every single one. because, obviously, taking 83 victims into court, it would tie it up in court for years. it would confuse the jury. it would just be horrendous to try and do that. what was it like for you, then, during the trial?
ijust tried to ignore it as much as possible. it was too painful at the time. hearing what had happened to the other women was very, very hard for me. i did feel, that point, very guilty, because i felt somehow responsible for what they went through. but that's because the police didn't believe you in 2003. yes. i always felt that had they believed me, they could have stopped him. one of the hardest days that i've had, through all of this, was when we went, when i had to go and identify him and sit in a room with 20 or 30 other victims. and feeling that they were all there because i wasn't believed. that was one of the worst things
i've ever had to experience will stop looking at their faces and thinking, "you shouldn't be here". how long do you think they would put him away for? i was under the impression he was going away for life. i never thought he'd be coming out. where were you when you heard that worboys was to be released? i was at home cooking my children's dinner. and it was on the news. i literally felt that someone had kicked me in the stomach. and to hear that through the media, knowing what we'd all gone through just felt like we were being let down by the system again. it does feel like this system, as a whole, is more... tries to protect worboys more than his victims. has anyone called you to offer support from, you know, the police services? no. as yet, nobody has been in contact with me. but then i've also heard reports that when they say "victims", they're only referring to the 12
victims that went to court. and the other 80 or 70 odd victims, possibly more, that went to the police, that were linked to this case, but didn't have their cases taken to court, not classed as victims. we are alleged victims, so we have no rights. we have no voice. as far as i can see at the moment, worboys could come out of prison tomorrow and live in the house next door to me and there was nothing i can do to prevent it. are you fearful? of course i am. i am very worried about this, because i know for a fact he will reoffend. somebody cannot live their life for so many years committing these sorts of crimes and getting away with it for such a long period, refused to accept they've done anything wrong and then all of a sudden turn over a new leaf and be a model citizen. of course he's going to reoffend. but i think the one thing that is worrying me, and possibly other people, is the fact that he knows where we lived. he did what he needed to do. he took the keys and took you and dumped you on your bed or your sofa.
he was inside their homes. he knows where they live. he had a notebook with all our names and addresses in them. so how will you stop it? well, that's why we are pushing for the judiciary review and hoping that they will reveal the reasons why they have decided that he is safe to come out. and then hopefully we can challenge that because itjust doesn't make sense that somebody could be safe after being deemed just over a year ago or unsafe and open prison. that doesn't make sense to me at all. that was a parole board decision? that was a parole board decision. what do you think that parole board? i don't know what they base that on, at the moment. and that's what we need to know. how they came to that conclusion. because it doesn't make sense to anybody. it's really important that we do this crowdfunding. you are crowdfunding for case, to keep him behind bars. what impact does that have on you?
absolutely. my main motivation at the moment is that this is a very dangerous criminal. i have a daughter and i need to protect my daughter. and everybody else‘s daughter and everybody else‘s mothers and sisters. women need to be protected from this man and that's why i'm doing this. for now, john worboys remains in prison. two contrasting headlines this morning concerning the defence secretary. 0n the telegraph front page, gavin williamson warned that russia is ready to kill us by the thousands. in the mail, mr williamson was confessing to an office romance and how it nearly destroyed his marriage. connected? 0ur political editor nick watt is here. what are you hearing? 0ur ambitious defence secretary, as you say, is in the news again. that story in the daily mail appears to have appeared after he was asking questions by the guardian about his private life. there is a feeling in whitehall that his account of what happened about 15 years ago is plausible. and it is believed it is truthful. but i have to say that eyebrows are being raised in whitehall and in the national security world about that article, that interview in the daily telegraph, which led to that headlined "russia is ready to kill us by the thousands".
he said two things about russia, one is that they will target the gas and electricity interconnect connectors that link the uk to continental europe. and that they are photographing power stations, electricity stations. i'm hearing language like this from the national security world. the secretary of state for defence is playing fast and loose with the national security, to distract from his private life. downing street, do they know? i think this was something that was known in the mod that i am not sure other areas of whitehall knew. i spoke to a good friend of gavin williams who says that he believes the secretary of state has got pretty close to the line of what you should disclose, but hasn't actually crossed that line. defence sources, what they are
saying is that none of this information was classified intelligence. 0n those undersea interconnect is, the secretary of state was speculating. but, again, from the national security world, they are saying that talking about russia photographing electricity power stations, they believe that is very, very sensitive information. safe in his job? for the moment. he is a former chief whip. what he knows is that if you are going to give an account about your private life, it needs to be plausible and it needs to be truthful. he knows that. so i am sure he will have sure that is the case. thanks. the art of letter writing is not dead. in the last half hour, business leaders have received an epistle from three cabinet ministers, hammond, davis and clark, reaffirming their vision for the next stage of brexit. it's a detailed letter. here's a highlight, and i quote: "we will then finalise the text of the withdrawal agreement to give the implementation period legalform at the same time as we build out
with the eu the framework for our deep and special future pa rtnership". stirring stuff. that's their version. let's see if our diplomatic editor mark urban can make next week's phase two negotiations sound just a little bit more exciting. what happens first? well, the barnier—davis talks are in abeyance. instead, right now, in order to avoid a cliff edge, the uk falling out of the eu in march 2019, without a deal, they have to agree a transition phase. and they aim to do it very quickly, over the next few weeks. it's urgent and it is a high priority on the agenda. and we're hoping that that's going to be negotiated in the next couple of months. it's not entirely straightforward. i think we understand that the terms on offer are... it will be basically a continuation of the status quo. although, of course, the uk would have left the eu, and therefore won't have a vote or seat at the table in future decisions.
to avoid the fabled cliff edge and secure a transition, theresa may's florence speech already conceded many principles. her brexiteer mps may not like it, but the extension of current eu rules, ongoing budget contributions and loss of voting rights were all signalled back in november. now eu states also seem to be moving, yielding some important ground on the future trading relationship. michel barnier insisted, even last month, that uk had a binary choice between a single market norway deal or a canada—type trade deal, a point he rammed home with his graphic about britain's brexit choices. but the canada comparison isn't really that useful, and is already being undermined
by people like emmanuel macron, who is saying, quite clearly, that britain could get something far more ambitious than canada's free—trade treaty. you will have your own solution. and my willigness. .. there will be a bespoke special solution for britain? sure, but i take these two references. because this "special way" should be consistent with the preservation of the single market and our collective interest. but if the eu is ready to concede a sliding scale of access, dependent on how closely the uk alliance with its rules, it's also used tough language in its guidelines about a level playing field. under these terms, it'll try to close off the possibility of a deregulated britain gaining a competitive advantage. what some brexiteers call a singapore model. singapore has a very authoritarian regime.
and a totally different conditions for the economy. but i believe united kingdom is competitive, due to the fact that it has the best universities in europe. that london will remain the most important financial hub, not only in europe, but worldwide. the eu 27 showed impressive unity throughout the first phase of negotiations. but for months, people in brussels have been telling me that they're not quite so confident it'll be so united in phase two. some countries are far more closely integrated with the uk economy, after all. and some will have to pay more into the eu budget, as british contributions taper. uk diplomats might find gaps they can exploit. they're going to be negotiating a new financial agreement for the future in 2019.
and without the british contributions for the future, the net contributors and the net recipient states may have different interests, there. and amid the snow—covered slopes of davos, some european leaders appear to be going off piste, suggesting full single market access could be available, if the uk pays enough. there has to be some price forfull access. and to what extent this access is going to be available has to be made dependent on some other... contributions. potentially including this financial contribution. perhaps the biggest change in brexit atmospherics since the phase one agreement last month, is that european leaders taking britain's concessions of the irish border as evidence that downing street is pursuing a softer way to brexit, are starting to discuss the mutual interests
in minimising trade disruption. the dutch, for example, talking about wanting to minimise friction in their trade. the initial reaction that the united kingdom must be punished is now changing and people begin to understand that the only reasonable solution is to find an arrangement that is the best possible for both sides. that takes into account the interests and the needs of both sides. and the hope that the view of the dutch prime minister will be the common view in the european union. the dutch prime minister is in the same situation as the german chancellor. for the german economy, it is extremely, extremely important not to damage the economic relation. of course, what european leaders want are further signs that the uk
intends to be very closely aligned on single market and customs rules. that possibility delights them. and one former commission mandarin told me it could lead to speedy trade agreements including on access for the financial sector. the only problem in that case, he said, was, "i don't know how you could conclude meaningful trade deals of your own". negotiators in brussels will burn the midnight oil in coming months. but key choices, reconciling the global trading vision of brexit with the mutual interest in keeping trade disruption to a minimum, must be taken by theresa may's government. and soon. every year, on the 26th of january, millions of aussies take to the pubs, streets and beaches to commemorate australia day. arms!
0n australia day, we come together and celebrate our nation and all of our history. all: happy australia day! they drink beer, enjoy barbies, and take pride in their country, its culture, and its achievements. it's to celebrate everything that's good about australia, the weather, family, friends. it's safe. it's fun, it's australia. it's what we do. but, of late, australia day elicits just as much, if not more, protest and controversy than celebration. it's a day that's, you know, steeped in blood. it reminds me of violent dispossession of my people. why are we having this on this date, if this is the date that is upsetting so many people?
the date is a painful one, for indigenous australians, because it marks the first arrival of british settlers in 1788 and recalls past and present traumas of repression, loss, exclusion and inequality. aboriginal people were only legally counted as being australian as late as 1967. some think the day should be abolished entirely. 0thers argue for a change in the date. the view of the current government is that by changing the date of australia day, you're just denying history, but the bigger question is, who decides whose history should be celebrated ? i am joined now by douglas murray who has written about this issue in australia in his latest book "the strange death of europe" and from melbourne by activist and actor nakkiah lui, a young leader within the australian aboriginal community. good evening to you both. douglas, is it not time to change australia day? a lot of australians will wonder why
and they will see it as an assault on the foundation of their nation and indeed it is. there are all sorts of arguments to be had about history. nobody would or could deny the mistreatment and maltreatment of the aboriginal peoples. but the problem is, as so often, the question is whether you are dealing with critics or enemies. a lot of australians will have heard of organised protests on their holiday talking notjust about the invasion of australia, but saying f australia, i hope it burns to the ground. that is not the language of the critic of a country, that is somebody talking as an enemy. is that not somebody who is perhaps in the end so frustrated as it were by the denial? but australia has not got denial about this.
australia has had national sorry days, national signings of books to say sorry, all sorts of things. australia has not ignored is passed. what do you say to that, australia has not ignored its past? i think that douglas is talking on false premises. a study recently found that the majority of australians would not care what day it was on. if australia day is on the day that is dividing us, i think then we need to examine the values that we are celebrating. and you say there is no denial of the history of the past in australia. well, there is, and that is one of the things why we are protesting. we are having our national celebrations on a day, january the 26th, which represents the day captain could put that union jack in the ground in australia and declared sovereign which began colonisation, which
resulted in genocide. —— captain cook. over 500 massacres on the east coast of australia alone. up to 50% of the aboriginal population wiped out continued into 1967 when my parents were not considered australian citizens. there is denial when you have your national day on a day that represents such brutality. is there not a situation where you can say, we live in a new, modern australia, modern australia made up of all sorts of peoples and we should create something new? australia has been having this discussion for decades. but there is a new generation coming up. first of all what is striking is the tone of attack on australia, the tone of burn this country to the ground. we could agree... that is incorrect. it is not about that, it is about changing the date. but you do not deny that was said?
i want to come back to you. but, douglas, by you highlighting that, that is a very political playing card to get your point across. this organisation and the organiser has said her comments were taken out of context. she has refused to apologise. let me finish my sentence. this is no longer a british i want to ask you, nakkiah, about this historical hurt. how deep does go for your generation? it continues on to this day and that is the issue. colonisation has made aboriginal people are very vulnerable. did you feel vulnerable growing up? did it affect you on a daily basis? 0ur life expectancy is 20 years below that of a non—aboriginal australian. incarceration rates are much higher, the majority of aboriginal people live in poverty. yes, it did affect me, i lived in a housing commission home.
my grandparents were afraid of my parents being stolen and the children being taken away. that continued through three generations. douglas, you are in favour of the first nation in a country having a special status. for example, in the uk we want to celebrate that here. if the nation is the first nation and the indigenous nation, surely it should have a special celebration? surely, they do and it should happen. no, a primary one, they are the first people of that country. a very similar thing is happening in america and canada. this movement is what australia is part of as well. movements as everywhere the europeans went they have colonised and destroyed. we could have a sensible weighing up of the discussion without saying the europeans are colonists and they have done genocide
and they are still guilty. but they were colonists, that is a fact. the question keeps on coming back about historical guilt and the appropriate weighing up of history. we have not had that in the past in australia. we do not get it with the bird australia stuff down either. thank you both very much. finally, last night, in a report on the controversial presidents club dinner, we said that the labour peer lord mendelsohn, spelt mend—e—l—s—o—h—n, had been asked to step back from the front bench, having attended the dinner. unfortunately, the bbc‘s automatic subtitling system wrote the name as lord mandelson, the former labour cabinet minister. peter mandelson was not at the event and we apologise for the error. that's all for this evening.
but before we go, german filmmaker florian nick spent six weeks travelling 3,400 miles in the western provinces of canada, capturing over 511,000 photos to assemble a series of time—lapse images. we leave you with the stunning results. good night. hello and welcome to sports day. the headlines tonight: manchester united crush your will‘s fa cup dream, when their fourth round tie 4—0. there has been no one—day whitewash for in